GOSPEL OF THE EBIONITES / OF THE TWELVE (1st -mid-2nd c.)

[alon]

rakovsky said: (6) The hypothesis that the sacrifices were not part of . Wikipedia gives the theory that the Ebionites shared the same way of thinking that is found in the Pseudo-Clementine Literature. In the Ebionites' Gospel, while the Temple still stood, Jesus told people that if they didn't stop sacrificing, that the wrath wouldn't cease from them.
("I came to abolish the sacrifices, and, if you do not cease to sacrifice, the wrath will not cease from you.")
It looks like this is the Ebionites' re-writing of Matthew 5:17's quote from Jesus:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

Sacrifices not a part of ? Pure idiocy, and the attempts to explain that follow are wholly unnecessary and a waste of time:

rakovsky said: In the Clementine literature, this can relates to two different theories. One is the theory in the Homilies 3.51 that sacrifices were not part of the law, which runs:
"In saying, 'I did not come to do away with the law', and yet doing away with something, he indicated that what he did away with had not originally been part of the law."

This would mean that the animal sacrifices were not really part of . But this theory is really hard to sustain. It looks really clear that in Moses' in the first five books of the Bible there are repeated prescriptions for numerous kinds of sacrifices, going back to the Passover Lamb Sacrifice that originated in Egypt. These sacrifices were meant to point to Yeshua's sacrifice centuries later, so it seems like they must have really been part of Moses' instructions. Plus, in saying that Yeshua "abolished" the sacrifices, the quote implies that the sacrifices were originally part of the . I guess that someone could rationally imagine that the original didn't have these prescriptions, but that doesn't seem realistic or reasonable.

I don't know if it's even arguable that God's covenant didn't include instructions that are found in the first five books of the Bible. Yeshua repeatedly argued against performing - or certain performances of - different observances or instructions found in , but I don't know if He ever made the argument that God's Law never actually included those observances or instructions.
(A) In Matthew 5:38-39, Yeshua says: "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person." This is a strange way to introduce a teaching from the . Instead of beginning by saying that God commanded this, Yeshua said "you have heard" this "said", as if this was some unnamed person's "saying".
(B) Yeshua complained that the pharisees taught commandments of men as if they were commandments of God. This seems to get into a confusing issue where Isaiah made the same complaint about the elders' rules, which in turn gets into the issue of the authority that God bestowed on Israelite elders in the .
(C) After the time of Solomon, there was a weird event where an Israelite king's people found a series of religious laws in the Temple, yet when they performed the seemingly sacred instructions, catastrophe befell the nation as a result.
(D) There are the theoretical suggestions in modern Jewish circles that seem to run against the essentiality of the ancient sacrifices.

Like I said, rationalizations based on an idiotic statement are completely unnecessary.

[alon]

rakovsky said: Rabbi Jack Abramowitz writes in his article "How Could The Be True When It Includes Sacrifices & Genocide?":
In Moreh Nevuchim, the Rambam says that the Beis HaMikdash (Temple) was NOT the ultimate form of service that Hashem desired! Think about it: there was only one Temple. People could not offer sacrifices anywhere else. People could not train to be kohanim – you had to be born a kohein. Even if you lived in Yerushalayim, you couldn’t go to the Mikdash whenever you wanted – there were a dozen forms of tumah (ritual impurity) that would keep people from attending! (Marital relations, bodily emissions, corpses, certain dead vermin, etc.) If G-d wanted us to go to the Mikdash and to offer korbanos (sacrifices), He certainly made it challenging! 


Contrast this with shuls the way we have them now (and, by the way, shuls did exist in Bible times as well). Shuls are everywhere and we go to them all the time. Halacha minimizes going to the Beis HaMikdash and maximizes going to shul – clearly, going to shul is the thing G-d wants us to do more!

If this is the case, why did G-d command that the Beis HaMikdash be built at all? Why didn’t He just tell us to build shuls wherever we might live? The answer, the Rambam explains, is that the Mikdash was kind of a “halfway house.” The Jews were surrounded by cultures that had temples, priests and sacrifices – it was all they knew! If G-d said, “Effectively immediately, sacrifices, incense and libations are replaced by reciting Shemoneh Esrei and reading the ,” the people would not have been able to adjust. The Temple was designed to transition the Jews from the practices of an idolatrous society to the way we have davening now.

Rabbi Marc Gruber writes something similar in his article "Reaching Even Higher":
"Our Reform approach to Judaism is one of growth and development. The values inherent in the ancient rites of fire and blood are to draw the faithful nearer to God. Let us heed the message that all life is sacred and extend our Judaism into everyday life in a way that sanctifies all life and lifts our spirits toward the Creator whose "tender mercies are over all God's works" (Psalm 145:9)."

But these two articles above don't deny that sacrifice was ever actually part of the like the Clementine Homily, they just deny or downplay sacrifice being an essential permanent element.


Actually, the Rabbis artical did not seem to me to downplay its being a permanent element so much as explain its role. And remember, this is a commentary by a Jew. So I can guarantee you before the ink was dry, two more Jews were writing their views in disagreement! The old saying about 2 Jews 3 opinions is actually a Jewish saying, picked up on by Gentiles. They know …

[alon]

rakovsky said: To get back to the main question (How could the Ebionites justify keeping the ’s rituals while not performing the sacrifices that the emphasizes, ie. those during Yom Kippur and Passover?) the Ebionites appear to be saying that sacrifices per se have been abolished. But what exactly is it that abolishes sacrifices, and why would this apply only to sacrifices and not to other prescriptions?
I guess you could say that in the Ebionites' Gospel Yeshua announced that He came to abolish sacrifices, and so this would be enough authority since He is the Messiah. But then one would want to know why Yeshua chose to abolish it. It doesn't sound as if even the Ebionites claimed that Yeshua instituted vegetarianism.
The way that in Christian thought that any sacrifices were abolished is that they were fulfilled and thus unnecessary. For example, Christ dying for one's sins obviated the usefulness of continuing to perform the Yom Kippur atonement sacrifice. But it is not clear how Christ's sacrifice would obviate all animal sacrifices like the Nazirite one. I think that you could make the argument that these sacrifices like the Nazirite one were ordained in order to point to Christ and His sacrifice, and so since the fulfillment of those prefigurements has occurred, the prefigurements are no longer necessary to perform. Let me make two critical observations about this:

I) This same logic of fulfillment that one might apply to sacrifices would by nature apply to other unique Mosaic prescriptions that pointed to Yeshua. For example, ritual purity rules pointed to spiritual purity. Paul wrote that circumcision is really of the heart, not of the flesh. Augustine theorized that circumcision pointed to the putting off of the flesh. Christ fulfilled the Sabbath rest rule in that He was in the tomb on the Sabbath. So if one believes in the abolition of all sacrifices because Yeshua fulfilled their purpose as a prefigurement of His sacrifice, then wouldn't one be led to similarly believe in the abolition of other ritual practices that served as prefigurements?

II) Why would their failure to cease sacrificing incur wrath? Per Psalm 50, it seems that continuing in sin while sacrificing would make the sacrifices hateful. Per the Clementine Recognitions, failing to recognize that the time for ending sacrifices came brought the wrath. In the Ebionites' Gospel, it just seems to say that the wrath comes because the abolished sacrifices have been performed. ie. Jesus just says that He came to abolish the sacrifices and that if you continue them then the wrath will continue. The document does not really give an explanation of why continuing the abolished sacrifices would incur God's wrath, but one could infer that it's because one continues to perform something that God has put an end to. Still, this logic goes beyond just simple abolition. In the text, Jesus doesn't just put an end to the need or spiritual value of the sacrifices, but he also adds a punishment for continuing them. This suggests that sacrifices themselves are something that God opposes and dislikes. But why would God oppose sacrifice per se? It seems to me that this actually reflects the Ebionites' underlying vegetarianism and opposition to killing animals.

Out of all these potential responses to Question 3, Number 7 above seems to make the most sense, but I can't find a logical reason why all the 's sacrifices would be abolished and yet the other rules like circumcision would remain in force.  Can you think of a rational explanation?

You are whipping a dead horse. None of has been abolished or changed. But all instructions therein are subject to conditions. Who does the instruction apply to? When? Where? Why? Is the individual able to what is required? Is there a higher mitzvah applicable in this case? Was this for one instance or forever?

The condition for sacrifices concern the Temple. No Temple, no sacrifice. If it is rebuilt, but Israel won’t allow Messianics in to sacrifice, then we can’t. And the shalosh regalim applies to those living in Israel. So those outside Israel wouldn’t be able to come and sacrifice as often anyhow.

rakovsky said: The first part of Question 4 ("Does the Gospel of the Ebionites’ passage on Jesus not desiring to eat the Passover “meat” reflect the Ebionites’ vegetarianism?") must be Yes. Their gospel didn't just deny that Christ wanted to eat the lamb, but specifically denied his desire to eat the lamb's "flesh".

The second part is a bit more complicated ("Is their passage that he didn't want to eat the flesh of the Passover Lamb compatible with Jesus’ declaration to His disciples that he wishes eat the Passover with them?")
One interpretation of Jesus' words is that (A) he literally wished to eat the OT Passover sacrifice with His apostles, and then He did on Maunday Thursday, as you interpret it. Some Church fathers like Epiphanius interpreted Jesus' words that way too in Luke 22. Actually, you could also interpret His words as meaning that (B) He wanted to participate in the OT Passover lamb meal with His disciples even if you theorize that the meal was held Friday night and theorize that He wasn't able to because the cup didn't pass from Him.

All theorizing based on an acknowledged heresy. What’s the point?

rakovsky said: If your theory were that Jesus meant that He wanted to eat a Spiritual Passover with His disciples, then it doesn't make much sense for Him to specify that He doesn't want to eat the lamb's flesh, because in the spiritual terms of the Spiritual Passover, Christ WAS the Lamb, and He did share the bread that spiritually was His flesh.

Spiritualizing everything is a particularly (though not exclusively) Christian mechanism for explaining anything they don’t understand. I try to avoid it, going there as the last resort. Some things are spiritual, and everything is spiritual. But nothing should be explained away as spiritual without first exhausting all avenues of understanding.

[rakovsky]

Sept 6, 2019 14:01:19 GMT -8 alon said:

But we know that Paul was involved in the Nazirite sacrifice in Acts 21, so while it looks like he did not want to get involved in more sin offerings, considering Christ to have taken away the sins once for all, Paul was not rejecting all sacrifices like it seems the Ebionites were.

Since you know that, and since Paul would not intentionally sin then have it recorded in a letter, we have to consider what is said in context of the totality of his works, right?

Paul was involved in the Nazirite sacrifice, and he wouldn't promote ending all sacrifice in a letter, as I think you are saying.

My take on this was that the Nazirite sacrifice was not a "guilt offering" like the Yom Kippur sacrifice was, so Paul was not taking issue with the Nazirite sacrifice. It sounds like in Hebrews 10, Paul was specifically addressing the effectiveness of offerings that dealt with sin, particularly the Yom Kippur sacrifice - but I believe that in the there were a few other sacrifices directed specifically at the issue of sin atonement.

Unlike Paul, the Ebionites were going further and demanding the end to all sacrifices, which would include the Nazirite sacrifice, not just the guilt offerings.

[rakovsky]

Sept 6, 2019 14:05:20 GMT -8 alon said:

Sept 6, 2019 13:48:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Clem. Hom. 2.38.1; 45-52; 18.19-20 The Clementina regard any anthropopathic material in the Pentateuch as a corruption of the Law God originally gave to Moses."

Clementine Homily 2.38, which the editor cites, includes:

Maybe I'm not understanding. When he says "Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God," does he mean scriptural falsehoods, or extrabiblical falsehoods? If the latter, ok. But if the former, we have a problem. And it sounds to me like he means the former.

The relevant passages are:

Ps.- Clem. Hom. 2.38.1; 45-52; 18.19-20 (from the Panarion's modern editor)

Ps-Cl Homilies 3.51.2 (from Wikipedia's quote)

I think that Ps Clement Hom. 2.38 is ambiguous because it could mean falsehoods in some people's comments (like some rabbis' writings) that are not in the but which some people wrote in connection with passages. But anyway, the other passages show that the author believes "the former" of your two options above as you suspected.

For example, Vol 2, Chapters 51 -52 have:

Then Peter said: "If, therefore, some of the Scriptures are true and some false, with good reason said our Master, 'Be ye good money-changers,' inasmuch as in the Scriptures there are some true sayings and some spurious. And to those who err by reason of the false scriptures He fitly showed the cause of their error, saying, 'You therefore err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; for this reason you are ignorant also of the power of God.'" Then said I: " You have spoken very excellently."

Then Peter answered: "Assuredly, with good reason, I neither believe anything against God, nor against the just men recorded in the law, taking for granted that they are impious imaginations. For, as I am persuaded, neither was Adam a transgressor, who was fashioned by the hands of God; nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world; nor did Abraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of a numerous posterity; nor did Jacob associate with four—of whom two were sisters—who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who intimated the coming of the presence of our Master; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest—he who set forth the law of God to all the world, and for his right judgment has been testified to as a faithful steward."

[rakovsky]

Sept 6, 2019 14:18:49 GMT -8 alon said:

rakovsky said: The first part of Question 4 ("Does the Gospel of the Ebionites’ passage on Jesus not desiring to eat the Passover “meat” reflect the Ebionites’ vegetarianism?") must be Yes. Their gospel didn't just deny that Christ wanted to eat the lamb, but specifically denied his desire to eat the lamb's "flesh".

The second part is a bit more complicated ("Is their passage that he didn't want to eat the flesh of the Passover Lamb compatible with Jesus’ declaration to His disciples that he wishes eat the Passover with them?")
One interpretation of Jesus' words is that (A) he literally wished to eat the OT Passover sacrifice with His apostles, and then He did on Maunday Thursday, as you interpret it. Some Church fathers like Epiphanius interpreted Jesus' words that way too in Luke 22. Actually, you could also interpret His words as meaning that (B) He wanted to participate in the OT Passover lamb meal with His disciples even if you theorize that the meal was held Friday night and theorize that He wasn't able to because the cup didn't pass from Him.

All theorizing based on an acknowledged heresy. What’s the point? 

One related issue is whether Jesus' declaration that He wanted to eat the Passover is consistent with there not being an animal lamb at the Last Supper. On one hand, Mark 14 talks about the killing of the Passover, which implies that His eating the Passover included a Lamb. In agreement with your view that having a Passover would entail a lamb, someone on the Catholic Answers Forum wrote: "No Jewish Passover would have been a REAL Passover unless a REAL Passover lamb was eaten. ... If no real lamb was eaten that Thursday night, the Passover, as was just stated, would have been invalid and in violation of the requirements of Exodus 12: 14, 17, and 24. "

But on the other hand, no Gospels or early believers' writings record an animal lamb there, Yeshua would have been the Lamb theologically, the weight of the other evidence suggests that the Passover Seder should have been the night of Good Friday, and if He had been observing the Essenes' Passover, there is the issue that the Essenes did not accept the Temple sacrifices of lambs. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:7: “Christ is our Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed…”

[alon]

Sept 6, 2019 16:14:03 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Sept 6, 2019 14:01:19 GMT -8 alon said:

Since you know that, and since Paul would not intentionally sin then have it recorded in a letter, we have to consider what is said in context of the totality of his works, right?

Paul was involved in the Nazirite sacrifice, and he wouldn't promote ending all sacrifice in a letter, as I think you are saying.

My take on this was that the Nazirite sacrifice was not a "guilt offering" like the Yom Kippur sacrifice was, so Paul was not taking issue with the Nazirite sacrifice. It sounds like in Hebrews 10, Paul was specifically addressing the effectiveness of offerings that dealt with sin, particularly the Yom Kippur sacrifice - but I believe that in the there were a few other sacrifices directed specifically at the issue of sin atonement.

Unlike Paul, the Ebionites were going further and demanding the end to all sacrifices, which would include the Nazirite sacrifice, not just the guilt offerings.

Numbers 6:9-14 (ESV)  “And if any man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two pigeons to the priest to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day and separate himself to the Lord for the days of his separation and bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering. But the previous period shall be void, because his separation was defiled.“And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and he shall bring his gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering,

Just some of the sacrifices required for the Nazarite Vow. Note the two instances of "sin offering" in this one short passage. Neither Jesus nor Paul ended any sacrifices. Otherwise, Paul could not have made the vow. And if he did and tried to get out without any of the requisite sacrifices, they'd have killed him. If not the worshipers in the Temple, then the Siccari. 

[alon]

Sept 6, 2019 16:32:21 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Sept 6, 2019 14:05:20 GMT -8 alon said:

Maybe I'm not understanding. When he says "Scriptures have had joined to them many falsehoods against God," does he mean scriptural falsehoods, or extrabiblical falsehoods? If the latter, ok. But if the former, we have a problem. And it sounds to me like he means the former.

The relevant passages are:

Ps.- Clem. Hom. 2.38.1; 45-52; 18.19-20 (from the Panarion's modern editor)

Ps-Cl Homilies 3.51.2 (from Wikipedia's quote)

I think that Ps Clement Hom. 2.38 is ambiguous because it could mean falsehoods in some people's comments (like some rabbis' writings) that are not in the but which some people wrote in connection with passages. But anyway, the other passages show that the author believes "the former" of your two options above as you suspected.

For example, Vol 2, Chapters 51 -52 have:

Then Peter said: "If, therefore, some of the Scriptures are true and some false, with good reason said our Master, 'Be ye good money-changers,' inasmuch as in the Scriptures there are some true sayings and some spurious. And to those who err by reason of the false scriptures He fitly showed the cause of their error, saying, 'You therefore err, not knowing the true things of the Scriptures; for this reason you are ignorant also of the power of God.'" Then said I: " You have spoken very excellently."

Then Peter answered: "Assuredly, with good reason, I neither believe anything against God, nor against the just men recorded in the law, taking for granted that they are impious imaginations. For, as I am persuaded, neither was Adam a transgressor, who was fashioned by the hands of God; nor was Noah drunken, who was found righteous above all the world; nor did Abraham live with three wives at once, who, on account of his sobriety, was thought worthy of a numerous posterity; nor did Jacob associate with four—of whom two were sisters—who was the father of the twelve tribes, and who intimated the coming of the presence of our Master; nor was Moses a murderer, nor did he learn to judge from an idolatrous priest—he who set forth the law of God to all the world, and for his right judgment has been testified to as a faithful steward."

So he outright says he doesn't believe the scriptures. So there's no more to discuss about him.

[rakovsky]

Sept 6, 2019 17:25:55 GMT -8 alon said:

Sept 6, 2019 16:14:03 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Paul was involved in the Nazirite sacrifice, and he wouldn't promote ending all sacrifice in a letter, as I think you are saying.

My take on this was that the Nazirite sacrifice was not a "guilt offering" like the Yom Kippur sacrifice was, so Paul was not taking issue with the Nazirite sacrifice. It sounds like in Hebrews 10, Paul was specifically addressing the effectiveness of offerings that dealt with sin, particularly the Yom Kippur sacrifice - but I believe that in the there were a few other sacrifices directed specifically at the issue of sin atonement.

Unlike Paul, the Ebionites were going further and demanding the end to all sacrifices, which would include the Nazirite sacrifice, not just the guilt offerings.

Numbers 6:9-14 (ESV)  “And if any man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two pigeons to the priest to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day and separate himself to the Lord for the days of his separation and bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering. But the previous period shall be void, because his separation was defiled.“And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and he shall bring his gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering,

Just some of the sacrifices required for the Nazarite Vow. Note the two instances of "sin offering" in this one short passage. Neither Jesus nor Paul ended any sacrifices. Otherwise, Paul could not have made the vow. And if he did and tried to get out without any of the requisite sacrifices, they'd have killed him. If not the worshipers in the Temple, then the Siccari. 

Good point. Weird issue.

I guess Paul in his letter was not explicitly demanding an end to sacrifice, but he was saying that it was not effective in ending sins because Jesus' sacrifice was what was effective. So Paul would submit to the leaders' instructions that he participate in the vow-taking and circumcision, even though he didn't apparently think that the sin offerings were removing sins.

[rakovsky]

It is nice writing with you because you are so good at getting back with replies.

[alon]

Sept 6, 2019 17:17:09 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Sept 6, 2019 14:18:49 GMT -8 alon said:

rakovsky said: The first part of Question 4 ("Does the Gospel of the Ebionites’ passage on Jesus not desiring to eat the Passover “meat” reflect the Ebionites’ vegetarianism?") must be Yes. Their gospel didn't just deny that Christ wanted to eat the lamb, but specifically denied his desire to eat the lamb's "flesh".
All theorizing based on an acknowledged heresy. What’s the point? 

One related issue is whether Jesus' declaration that He wanted to eat the Passover is consistent with there not being an animal lamb at the Last Supper. On one hand, Mark 14 talks about the killing of the Passover, which implies that His eating the Passover included a Lamb. In agreement with your view that having a Passover would entail a lamb, someone on the Catholic Answers Forum wrote: "No Jewish Passover would have been a REAL Passover unless a REAL Passover lamb was eaten. ... If no real lamb was eaten that Thursday night, the Passover, as was just stated, would have been invalid and in violation of the requirements of Exodus 12: 14, 17, and 24. "

But on the other hand, no Gospels or early believers' writings record an animal lamb there, Yeshua would have been the Lamb theologically, the weight of the other evidence suggests that the Passover Seder should have been the night of Good Friday, and if He had been observing the Essenes' Passover, there is the issue that the Essenes did not accept the Temple sacrifices of lambs. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:7: “Christ is our Paschal Lamb who has been sacrificed…”

It is entirely possible that Jesus ate an Essene lamb at the "Last Supper." He was in an Essene home, and they prepared the meal. However consider there were about 3,000,000 people estimated to live in Judea and the Galilee at the time. So 3,000,000 ppl/10 ppl o a lamb= 300,000 sheep that had to be inspected then ritually slaughtered. That might take a while, so some have proposed this process, even with all the priests present and helping might take a couple of days. I don't think this was the case, but I thought I'd throw it out there. An Essene lamb makes more sense to me. But however it happened, there was a paschal lamb there other than Yeshua. 

[alon]

Sept 6, 2019 17:33:24 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Sept 6, 2019 17:25:55 GMT -8 alon said:

Numbers 6:9-14 (ESV)  “And if any man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his consecrated head, then he shall shave his head on the day of his cleansing; on the seventh day he shall shave it. On the eighth day he shall bring two turtledoves or two pigeons to the priest to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and the priest shall offer one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering, and make atonement for him, because he sinned by reason of the dead body. And he shall consecrate his head that same day and separate himself to the Lord for the days of his separation and bring a male lamb a year old for a guilt offering. But the previous period shall be void, because his separation was defiled.“And this is the law for the Nazirite, when the time of his separation has been completed: he shall be brought to the entrance of the tent of meeting, and he shall bring his gift to the Lord, one male lamb a year old without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb a year old without blemish as a sin offering, and one ram without blemish as a peace offering,

Just some of the sacrifices required for the Nazarite Vow. Note the two instances of "sin offering" in this one short passage. Neither Jesus nor Paul ended any sacrifices. Otherwise, Paul could not have made the vow. And if he did and tried to get out without any of the requisite sacrifices, they'd have killed him. If not the worshipers in the Temple, then the Siccari. 

Good point. Weird issue.

I guess Paul in his letter was not explicitly demanding an end to sacrifice, but he was saying that it was not effective in ending sins because Jesus' sacrifice was what was effective. So Paul would submit to the leaders' instructions that he participate in the vow-taking and circumcision, even though he didn't apparently think that the sin offerings were removing sins.

Oh. He both took vows and helped others to take them. And he was saying sacrifices cannot remove sins (which all Jews knew). Only Jesus sacrifice can do that, if we accept Him as God and Messiah.

[alon]

Sept 6, 2019 17:34:55 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

It is nice writing with you because you are so good at getting back with replies.

Thanks. Makes me think, which is probably a good thing! 
Dan ( ) C

[rakovsky]

Good discussion.

[rakovsky]

Well our discussions covered practically all the issues that I didn't understand in the texts that we discussed, and these were almost all the clearly identified "Jewish Christian" or -Observant believers writings from the first century at the earliest. So if you read them all at some point, you will be pretty familiar with all the hardest issues already.

One of the main things that I learned was that the EO Church never had a decisive official break with the Nazarenes, or with -Observant Jewish followers, unlike the Catholic Church, which rejected circumcision at their Council of Florence. A well known EO whom I believe is rather -observant is Fr. James Bernstein, the author of Surprised by Christ. One of the most interesting parts of the conversation was pulling apart the 400 years in 4 Esdras. It's a major issue with that particular text that theologians haven't agreed on. I wish there were more Messianic believers that used this forum.